False Principles if you want some quick idea as to how he writes and works

Knowing the Hegelian dialectic and some Hegelian language wouldn't hurt (alienation, geist, etc) , nor would Feurerbach's Essence of Christianity. Most importantly having at least a basic 101 grasp of "what philosophy is", the categories you are dealing with, and why anyone would read a philosophy book in the first place - however none of the pre-reqs suggested are necessary. Just read the book and figure out how to make sense of it if it strikes your fancy.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

Why do you like him so much William? I'm still trying to find myself and who I am and I think thats what Philosophy is. Forgetting the common philosophical clichés, I feel its an attempt to rationalize personal existence an attempt to make sense of the world using our own internal inclinations. But that then begs the question, is it possible to understand the un-understandable, and to make sense of the nonsensical?

Also, there is nothing wrong with just reading Ego on it's own - just realize it is going to be understood more as literature than any philisophical look at things (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Actually I take everything I said back. If you want to shell out the cash, this is the best place to start, if you are comming from nowhere:

http://www.amazon.com/Max-Stirner-His-Life-Work/dp/1594579830

It's the biography by poet John Henery Mackay. It's very easy, fast, and fun to read and sets the scene well enough.

The avatar is a slef portrait by Zinaida Serebriakova:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Serebriakova

She is a very good artist

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

I have a pretty normal background as far my education is concerned, went to a public grade school. And then to a public middle school and high school. I am very fortunate to be going to North Carolina State University right now, its pretty fun so far. (Chinese is my favorite class right now.)

I love to read and learn, always have. Its funny, I've been reading and learning for all these years but I've only started thinking in the last 2 months or so.

@Norgath: Stirner's Ego is awesome but I think his personal life is a cautionary tale. There is a difference between enlightened self-interest and craven self-interest and that difference is everything in terms of what really matters: satisfaction. The harcore egoist is like the miser who makes himself miserable with worry that someone might cheat him out of a dime rather than letting go of the small stuff and enjoying the riches of life, while maintaining a healthy, balanced circumspection against those who would rob you. I think Stirner took egoism too far and his life shows the consequences of that.

Satisfaction is the final aim of all action. Hence, one's course in life should be judged by no higher standard than this: is it leading to your own satisfaction? Your satisfaction is not solely a function of material wealth. Depending on circumstances, the single-minded pursuit of material wealth may result in a lower overall satisfaction than other courses of action. In fact, this is precisely the discoordinating effect of Leviathan in the social order. The more fully expressed the Leviathan principle is within society, the greater the discrepancy between the natural pursuit of material success and one's actual satisfaction. In an unhampered social order, material success and satisfaction are synonymous. Hence, attaining satisfaction in a time and place where the Leviathan principle is in full bloom is complicated and requires greater subtlety than the naive pursuit of one's obvious, material ends.

The fact that you are actually thinking while in college means you have a leg up on most people, including myself.

If time, money, and your degree allow it: take courses in psych 101, micro and macro econ, philosophy 101, and basic logic. A good lit class would be good as well. Any of those classes will help you one thousand times over if you are in good faith and charitable to the professors / aids and classes trying to help teach the material at hand.

It should be an enjoyable, motivating, and satisfying experience: even if the answers you are looking for don't seem readily available right now. Everything important tends to take time to digest. All these things will help you approach more interesting outside positions with a clearer head: such as Stirner, heterodox economics, etc.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

To be very brief and not stray from the topic at hand I wish to focus on (a study of Max Stirner), make sure you are not asking questions on psychology, etc.

If "who I am" - you mean something along the lines of ontology - Stirner does deal with the issue.

When I first started reading Stirner (winter/spring) I had mentioned him to my friend who oddly enough never heard of him, and brought up that this guy was talking about "ego" before Freud, etc. Interesting observation, but different contexts of ego.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

When I first started reading Stirner (winter/spring) I had mentioned him to my friend who oddly enough never heard of him, and brought up that this guy was talking about "ego" before Freud, etc. Interesting observation, but different contexts of ego.

Yeah it is different - however there is almost certainly a relationship there (probably indirect). Egoism, is a loaded and easy to confuse word ( ex: Stirner was not talking about psychological egoism directly) In fact, I think it is one of my pet hobbies to think about the relationship between Shopenhauer, Goethe, Stiner, Mises, Freud, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, and a few other "Teutonic" styled thinkers and show how it is in conflict with, and usually superior to, more mainstream "Anglo" traditions (this is of course a very sweeping generalization, don't read too much into it).

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

I read the introduction today of Ego as well as the first chapter, Eigenheit I think... I didnt find his historical theories that interesting and the intro explained it, so I figured that I could skip it.

The first chapter is about other peoples lack of ownness and using general means and ends to achieve personal ends (if that makes sense.) Rather than doing things for the sake of them?

1) It isn't an historical theory. It is using Hegelian terminology / allegory to make an illustration (Ancient, Modern, Egoist - is playing with a Hegelian dialectic as well). The book almost always is indirectly channeling Hegel - and often directly mimics Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity

2) No, it is never about a "lack of owness" - that can't exist in Stirner's position. If you are called a "half-egoist" it is like being called a "flat earther" - it means that one does not acknowledge a fact of reality but nevertheless, the fact still exists.

The book does not offer any "revolutionary views" (as Mises or Einstein do not), and there are no "joys of individuality" to be found in the book as there are none in MIses. That is not the purpose of either thinker.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

I dont get the German comedy deal, right over my head.
Whoops, is the "historical" thing a way to describe past mans lack of catering to his ownness?
In school we were taught to write papers with an introduction a body and a conclusion, is this hegelian or am I mistaken? I havent had a chance to read The Owner yet. Schools pretty busy.

Seems kind of tragic to me.... he marries this woman pretty obviously for her money... then ends up driving her away after spending her fortune, then ends up living off loans from his friends until their patience for him runs out, then pretty much ends up in the gutter. Perhaps he should have thought about how he was treating people and how that would make them feel towards him, rather than just thinking all the time about what he could get out of people. Perhaps I'm misreading his biography but that's what I see...

That kind of goes with your definition of Epicureanism - hedonism, but in the sense that you actually think about your happiness in the long run rather than just engaging in some kind of stupid activity that may seem fun at the moment but will bring you pain in the end.

His biography is very sketchy, any judgments made on him would be fruitless speculation, one could make the opposite assertions (he took care ofhis mother and 1st dying wife to the end, and was by most accounts a god school teacher, etc.). He dided in poverty, his second wife hated him (and was fairly cryptic as to why), and he never made a lot of friends (though both Bruno and Edgar Bauer attended his funeral - those are some facts, but nothing to great to concern oneself with.

Either way, his life has nothing to do with anything he wrote - anymore than Karl Popper, Mises, or whomever else anyone wants to throw out there.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

Indeed, I think his ideas are evil, how much property can you have, well how powerful are you? how long can you keep it, well how big are you? It's like embracing aggression as the inevitable lowest common denominator and choosing to live as if that were the only way.

Doesn't Anenome have a point? Doesn't Stirner's "might is right" tend to lean towards saying that aggression is the human condition and is the only "right," that the state has some sort of right over all of us because it owns us due to it's "might?"

Also, I'm only asking these to further understand Stirner - I'm not saying I fully believe one way or the other.

Well, Stirner is a philosopher, so I don't think anyone can do him justice in summary form - go read and see what you make of it. The Ego and Its Own is a fairly long read but it's pretty engaging as far as philosophical material goes...

But I have a hard time seeing anything in Stirner that would make a Prince or a mob boss feel uncomfortable with it which, to me, is a problem. If your views are something that a Prince would be as happy to read as the man on the street, then I think you're failing to really grapple with the problems of human society and human morality.

Doesn't Anenome have a point? Doesn't Stirner's "might is right" tend to lean towards saying that aggression is the human condition and is the only "right," that the state has some sort of right over all of us because it owns us due to it's "might?"

No more than building a dresser takes carpentry too far.

Look, if you wish to ponder thoughts of morality or how society ought to be, or how you ought behave - you're barking up the wrong tree reading Stirner. He is (thankfully) not a moralist.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann